HD 4670 Review: Mainstream muscle card? - PAGE 12

To measure power usage, we used a Kill A Watt P4400 power meter. Note that the above numbers represent the power drain for the entire benchmarking system, not just the video cards themselves. For the 'idle' readings we measured the power drain from the desktop, with no applications running; for the 'load' situation, we ran a demanding part of 3DMark06.

This is one benchmark where the HD 4670 really impresses: the power usage chart. Tree-loving green folk would appreciate the low power requirements that the HD 4670 offers. Very, very surprisingly the HD 4670 requires less power than did our MSI RX2600XT in the charts, both of which do not even require a PCIe power connector! Now I don't use italics all that often -- but here there use is well justified. Excellent miserly power usage for the HD 4670.

Conclusion

After being wowed by the HD 4800 series of cards, I can't help but feel slightly let down by the HD 4670 -- but rationally, I don't really have much cause to.

The HD 4670 does the job, and is a capable mid-range offering. Whether it'll be able to hit ATI's goal of getting that lovely 30 FPS mark on 'High' settings with the big upcoming games of October -- most notably Farcry 2 and Fallout 3 --- at 1680 x 1050 is a bit up in the air at this point... but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it should make it, but that this card may have difficulties later in 2009.

This video card has a great host of features, and using a rapidly aging video card, say a 7800 GT or HD 2600 Pro (or something along and below those lines) this card would make a great upgrade, being offered initially for about $80. The HD 4670 is a huge improvement over the last generation's mid-range offerings, from both NVIDIA and ATI, and this is well achieved as the card utilizes that less expensive 'mid-range' 128 bit memory interface, but still delivers.

For those are looking for pure gaming performance however, many might be tempted by the HD 3870 and 8800 GT, which just simply have more horsepower, and more staying power, the today's offering. Perhaps you might not think this is a fair comparison -- but when you consider the price gulf between the ever-falling high-end cards of last generation, it might be worth considering. While right now the HD 4670 is a good deal, it seems plausible that in as little as a month, the cards mentioned might offer a bit more bang for the buck, for maybe as little as $20 or $30 more. But of course: how many bucks do you want to spend? $20 or $30 more is an appreciable amount, when you are talking about an $80 video card. Certainly, for $80, HD 4670 is a very capable mid-range card.

The next time you read comments from anyone saying that the woe of PC gaming is expensive hardware, you can correct them easily, by citing the HD 4670. Tie the HD 4670 to a inexpensive dual-core, some inexpensive DDR2, and you are ready to rock. The HD 4670 may not be as exciting as the HD 4800 series, but it delivers on its promises, and is a fine mid-range offering. It is a big step up for ATI's performance target for the sub-$100, mid-range card -- and I'm telling you, things are looking up for PC gaming if this is the new mid-range.

Comments

Boooo you're still using demos for benchmarks, and your graphs are pitiful. Why don't you show minimum, average, and maximum framerates?, it gives a better overall understanding as to how well the card performs.

Oh why don't you like demos for benchmarks? I think I'm going to stick with them. The newest demos really stress a card and are a good way to bench, IMHO.

I'm totally and completely going to use max/min/average, as you suggest. That is a good idea... Although actually come to think of it the min will not be that useful, because the FRAPs starts with loading screen, so actually all cards will have the same inaccurate low min. Generally with demos as well the max goes really, really high at some points (spikes of 1000+ frames a second) while the average (as in most of the time during the demo) the FPS is between 30-90.